Menu

On Traditional Women’s Rights Activists (TWRAs)

It may or may not be a surprise to some that while I support traditional values and believe they are the foundation to a stable society, I do not consider myself a traditionalist; at least not as it is defined in my blogging world. I don’t neatly fit into any group and if anything the best way to describe myself after being Christian is a realist/red pill thinker.

With that said, the traditionalistwomen and men have organized a new movement based at Feminine Mystique (eerie name for being against feminism) and while I want to agree with their mission there is something that just doesn’t sit right as I will point out in my commentary of the following piece by Jesse Powell at Feminine Mystique (http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/why-i-am-a-twra/).

I am a TWRA, a Traditional Women’s Rights Activist, because I strongly believe that women should be granted the rights and privileges of the Traditional Woman; the rights and privileges that women were commonly granted traditionally, before feminism came on the scene. I will further add that the rights of Traditional Women should be granted to women generally simply on the basis of their being women whether a particular woman identifies as being a “Traditional Woman” or not.

I am opposed to “women’s rights” in the modern feminist sense. “Women’s rights” as the phrase is typically used today is a manipulative and misleading term implying that women have the “right” to do whatever they want regardless of how it harms others and regardless of how it undermines women’s rightful and traditional role in society. “Women’s rights” in the feminist sense is abusive and selfish as such “rights” are disconnected from any moral obligations or higher duty of the woman to her family and to society at large. The rights of the Traditional Woman however are honorable and noble and must be supported by men since the rights of the Traditional Woman are necessary for the woman to be able to fulfill her traditional role in society.

So, in other words, ALL women are honorable and noble and must be supported by men, whether she holds traditional values or not. A woman who does whatever she wants and harms society is still a traditional woman who should be honored. I have no doubt a feminist will walk all over a man who holds those beliefs and will end up using that man for her own misguided purpose.

Men owe women chivalry; the ethic that men should provide for and protect women. Creating a secure environment for women comes first. Men have to signal their trustworthiness before women can be expected to give men trust. Granting to women the rights of the Traditional Woman is the primary way that men signal to women that they are trustworthy. Only after men signal their trustworthiness will women trust men and only after there is mutual trust between men and women can a healthy and stable foundation for family life be established.

It is not a lack of women seeing men as trustworthy that is the problem. The problem is rebellion and this is a sin that women will have to address on their own (with God’s hand of course). No man can help them there. A secure environment was always there and women rebelled against this. Creating a secure environment now is not going to change a rebellious spirit. Also, what is with men having to do something first before women? This seems at odds with submission. Such as men have to be trustworthy, before women can trust. This is like saying men have to be worthy of a woman’s submission, before she submits.

Men must be the first ones to take the risk of abuse and harm in order to establish trust between the sexes.

Pause here for a moment. Yes, read it again. Women break the trust and yet men are the ones to take the abuse and harm. There is no responsibility for women’s collective past decisions and actions. Women get a free pass. A free pass to break the societal contract and have the men clean up the mess. Trust won’t be reestablished until women first humbly apologize and take the submissive position and repent.

In other words in a situation where men don’t trust women and women don’t trust men men must be the first to offer trust and vulnerability to establish trustworthiness in women’s eyes and break the cycle of mutual hostility and distrust between men and women.

The reason why men must go first is because it is the man’s role to provide for and protect women, not the other way around. Men are the ones who must take risks so that the environment for women is secure and predictable. The role of a woman requires safety and predictability. The role of the man confronts danger head on and creates for the woman the safety and predictability that she needs. In the context of mutual distrust between the sexes that feminism has created where neither side feels it can trust the other it is the man who has to face the danger of betrayal in order to reestablish the mutual trust that has been lost.

So I as a man support chivalry and the rights of the Traditional Woman because it is my duty as a man to create a secure environment for women and to support women in their traditional role and to signal to women that men are trustworthy.

Again, why? Why do men have to be the first to offer trust when they weren’t the ones who broke the trust? An answer of “because it is the man’s role to provide for and protect women” does not pass here. Men were doing that just fine and women rebelled, so what’s to stop them from continuing to rebel? Talk of a man’s role or man’s duty certainly won’t. Also, should men be showing women vulnerability? That seems more a trait of the submissive woman.

One of the most basic and fundamental rights of the Traditional Woman is the right to be financially provided for by one’s husband.

I wouldn’t call this a right. Being financially provided for is a privilege bestowed upon those worthy of a man committing to them; those worthy of being seen as an asset rather than a liability. Marriage and financial provisions are not rights and not something women deserve just for being women.

Married women should not work. Working to earn money is a specifically male role; it is a specifically masculine activity. It is not a general activity everyone should participate in, it is something that particularly fits with the strengths and the role of men. A woman being forced into the workforce is being displaced from her domestic role where she has the highest value to her family and to society and put into a situation where she is naturally disadvantaged compared to the man, where her family related duties will necessarily be harmed, and where she will create a disruption to the work environment she has been forced into that will harm others.

I suggest that the husband determines how he can maximize his wife’s skills and attain the highest value for the family at any given time. If he feels it is in the home, then she stays home. If he feels at work, then she works. And all along the wife should respect his decision and trust that he knows what is best for the family. It took much internal conflict for me to realize that just because my husband thought I should work from time to time before we had kids, doesn’t mean he is not a real man. He felt my time and skills were better spent adding to our savings than having a meticulously clean house. I trust his judgment and enjoy knowing that by helping him where he needs help (helpmate) will lessen his stress down the road when another bout of lay-offs come as it no doubt will in this brave new world.

What causes harm when a woman is forced into a work environment is not the actual situation, but the woman’s response to that situation. If I followed traditionalist thinking, I would feel resent and hostility towards my husband for not keeping me in the gilded housewife role. Much easier to yield, take comfort in knowing you are helping your husband feel less stressed, and pray for God’s will.

Looking at historical statistics only 2.2% of white married women worked in the United States in 1890. The earnings of men were far lower in 1890 than they are today but such a high priority was placed on protecting married women from having to work that even in such an overall materially deprived environment white married women were successfully protected from the necessity of paid work 98% of the time.

I don’t doubt those statistics and those certainly were better times, but this doesn’t deal with reality. The reality is women rebelled against all that. Collectively women have decided they don’t want to be protected and choices must have consequences. If it means the end of a stable society, so be it. I and many others are prepared for that. They only way modern women will learn their lesson, of their part in the fall of a great nation, is to watch it burn for themselves. A rebellious spirit cannot be reasoned or romanced with talks of the greater good.

I said at the beginning that women in general should be granted the rights of the Traditional Woman simply because they are women regardless of how a particular woman identifies herself.This is because the virtue and desirability of the Traditional Woman is universal and because women in general need to be able to trust men in general.

A woman has the duties of a Traditional Woman whether a woman sees herself as a Traditional Woman or not. In the same way a man has the duties of a Traditional Man whether a man sees himself as a Traditional Man or not. This then means that women should be granted the rights and privileges of the Traditional Woman regardless of the details of their self-identification because all women share a role and a purpose in common whether women accept this reality or not.

I don’t see how there is any other way to read this than to say that feminists, modern women, and the common slut should all be treated like traditional women just because they are still women underneath it all. No need to act like a lady, you will be treated like a lady simply by being born with female parts. That is one sweet deal. Women need to get their act together and get a grasp on the invaluable role they play in society before men start handing out rights and privileges. As I recall men handed out the “right to vote” and that has just done wonders for the traditional cause.

What does it matter if women all share a role in common if most of them are not willing to accept this in their real, day to day lives?

Since the standard operating assumption of society should be to favor and promote the virtues of the Traditional Woman for this reason society should grant to women the rights and privileges of the Traditional Woman on principle universally.

Here is where we deal with fantasy world versus real world. Yes, that SHOULD be how society operates, but is isn’t–that is the ugly truth. This is where the line is drawn–living based on how things SHOULD be and living based on how things actually are. Living a life planted in how the world actually operates does not lessen one’s traditional beliefs or vision, but rather gives a better awareness of how to make changes to get back to how they SHOULD be; which is not by merely treating women and men as traditional women and men just because they are women and men.

So I encourage all the men out there to step up to their manly duties as men and support the cause of Traditional Women’s Rights.

On the same token, it seems then men should be treated as traditional men regardless in how they identify themselves. Therefore, women all over should treat gamers/PUAs, MRAs, “bad boys”, abusive men, etc., as traditional men because their sex dictates that you do so. Step up to your womanly duty and support Traditional Men’s Rights because whether or not the PUAs acknowledge it, they are Traditional Men. Although then again, that’s right–women don’t have duties, just “rights and privileges”.

Post navigation

47 comments

On the same token, it seems then men should be treated as traditional men regardless in how they identify themselves. Therefore, women all over should treat gamers/PUAs, MRAs, “bad boys”, abusive men, etc., as traditional men because their sex dictates that you do so. Step up to your <womanly duty and support Traditional Men’s Rights because whether or not the PUAs acknowledge it, they are Traditional Men. Although then again, that’s right–women don’t have duties, just “rights and privileges”.

Thanks to years of everyone in these fringes of teh Interwebz, we now know that the easiest way to expose the feminist agenda (traditional, so-con, liberal, progressive, it’s all the same ideology of Goddess worship) is to simply take any of their arguments, and invert the genders to see the blatant useful idiocy of it.

With the whole adopting the cultural norms of 1890, I the think the problem with that is that the “tradition” here is a bastard child of the Enlightened Barbarian (The 17th-18th century European Enlightment + Worship of the Noble Savage) except with added pedestalization of the Victorian Princess, aka Anglo Protestant which leads to New England Puritan mores in the good old USA (the modern white liberals aka SWPLs and Yuppies). The USA Founding Fathers and the documents are classical liberalism (which has lead to modern liberalism).

Classical liberalism, and its offshoot modern liberalism, are bad.

All of this didn’t exist in early ancient Greece, early ancient Rome, the early Church and other important times/cultures/eras. It existed during the decaying phase, but that’s another issue. Societies always go through cycles.

The big issue is that these cycles have been interrupted in the modern/post-modern era. That and liberalism is always switching between right-liberalism and left-liberalism methods in achieving its goals.

This is honest curiosity, so if someone can explain this to me I’d be grateful. Why is it that a woman needs to be worthy of a man’s provision but a man doesn’t have to be worthy of a woman’s submission? Is this supported by scripture?

CL- This is mainly a problem because people marry based on “feelings” these days rather than logic, observation, and relying on the wisdom of elders. She shouldn’t have married him if he’s unworthy of submission. He shouldn’t have married her if she is unworthy of providing for. Yes, some people do change after a marriage, but you can sort out a lot of bad apples if you marry with your heart AND your head.

I have yet to see any of these strident traditionalists offer a substantive answer as to what they plan to do if their betrothed employs State power to break up the marriage and redistribute the husband’s resources to the wife.

She shouldn’t have married him if he’s unworthy of submission. He shouldn’t have married her if she is unworthy of providing for.

Of course that is true, and I agree that basing a marriage only on feelings is a bad plan. So you think that a man does need to be worthy of a woman’s submission just as a woman needs to be worthy of a man’s provision? Because my experience is that it is not possible to submit to a marshmallow man.

CL, the man *does* need to be worthy of a woman’s submission, but once you are in, then you’re in. He is.

Oh, wait. The guy is a marshmallow man, in her humble opinion? Is her life not wonderful? Then of course it follows that once she has *judged* the man to be unworthy that what is required of her is “impossible”, and not merely a difficult spiritual duty.

Topping from the bottom is a real problem for you, isn’t it? This is why that whole captain/first mate thing is short-sighted.

Women break the trust and yet men are the ones to take the abuse and harm. There is no responsibility for women’s collective past decisions and actions. Women get a free pass. A free pass to break the societal contract and have the men clean up the mess. Trust won’t be reestablished until women first humbly apologize and take the submissive position and repent.

feminism and the installation of totalitarian gynarchy across the west constitutes a tremendous betrayal of the masculine, whose trust was given (even to point of life-sacrifice for Woman) and was massively betrayed, over and over

men are not going to “step forward” and offer up their lives again, to people who backstabbed them, and are still laughing over the blood

charlie brown has rushed forward to kick his last football

the next kick will be for Lucy

the status of women following this betrayal of God and man is about to change, but the whole planet will have to be broken to do it, because the western governments, churches, and other institutions are all elements of Team Female . . . that’s how deep the rebellion goes, all the way to the root

the shock to the Sistem must be sufficiently severe that the race never forgets it . . . and never wants to return to the conditions that triggered the shock

only after terrible ruin and trauma will woman repent and desire submission

I wonder if my posts will even be allowed through moderation. Those women are full of entitlement. Their expectations are off the charts. Don’t lead them, they’ll stab you in the back the first chance they get. It’s just another shaming attempt to get men back in line.

They broke the contract, they must repent, submit and then something might be done. Not a moment sooner. Women must feel the pain and anguish of their decisions.

At least she allowed my comments through. Now to get past the shaming and perhaps I can have a lively discussion with them. I won’t dismiss them outright, perhaps they can learn that this whole society thing is a two way street with each sex having to sacrifice in order to keep the whole thing going. Who knows? Wish me luck!

Still, their expectations are off the charts. Perhaps you can help me, where do women get these expectations from? If I’m a traditionalist I get attacked and shamed by the feminists. If a man is a egalitarian, he is attacked and shamed by the women on the right side. You’re beaten and battered no matter which side you turn to. Are they really that surprised that men just kind of *shrug* and do their own things?

Fantastic takedown. The arguments presented by the folks at feminine mystique are nonsensical in the extreme, and morally negligent,at that.

We men have tried being the ones to “break the cycle of mutual hostility”. When we do that, good ladies get further marginalized by the rabid feminist element and men get bent over and reamed. No, we’re not going to do that.

I like the argument about the consequences to society of “modern” female behaviors,but apparently it is an empty statement made by the author,because the action that is recommended is MORE OF THE SAME nonsense that got us into this position. The idea that men aren’t inherently worthy of trust,but WOMEN are, is frankly insulting. Men don’t write love letters to convicted rapists and murderers. We may not be angels, but there isn’t nearly as much reason to distrust the average man that there is to distrust the average woman. Besides that, we already have a record of acting honorably and even indulgently with regards to the issues of the other side. Women still have a record of ZERO compromises,ZERO indulgences,ZERO ANYTHING regarding acknowledging the issues of men.

Women have done NOTHING for us and we have given them title 9,affirmative action,lily ledbetter, the civil rights act, and now free birth control. FREE BIRTH CONTROL for women, and WE still don’t have decent PAID birth control.

We have bent over BACKWARDS already. The ball is now in the court of WOMEN, and if they won’t take action and deal with us equally and like adults,then they can remain barren and alone. I don’t care if any women get married or have children.

Yes, but women cannot give men that authority. Men claim authority on the basis of being men thus they give chivalry to women which comes with the claiming of authority. If you believe that a woman must ‘deserve’ chivalry that is essentially saying that women must give men authority (by deferring to men). In your scenario if a woman does not defer to a man she does not deserve chivalry. This means that you need the woman’s permission (deference) in essence to give her chivalry. In this scenario a man does not claim authority. He is given authority. Thus he is still emasculated. But when he does claim authority he does so knowing that he has it, thus he treats all women like children (chivalry). This does not mean a man should settle with a loose woman, it means that in public he gives all women chivalry. But he only marries the ethereal virgin, thus this gives incentive for other women to become ethereal virgins and defer to men as well. Because the sluts will or future daughters of sluts, will want chivalry and marriage. By giving chivalry to all women you are boosting the woman’s confidence in men. Again, you do not need to settle with them but it will give an incentive to trust men.

Chivalry is the incentive to women. So they can finally trust men. Marriage today is a bad deal for women; women must have jobs before marriage and afterwards their husbands make them work. Men (most) are no longer men.

She has an interesting perspective, I’ll give her that. However, she just cannot see this from the view of a traditional man. She seems to think that men want sluts as wives, I cannot get my head around that. To show my point, here’s another quote.

Again when men are chivalrous and they refuse sluts women will have the incentive for marriage with men. That is what the TWRA’s seek we seek to teach women the important values of submission and femininity. But a woman CANNOT submit to a man who is NOT chivalrous or a man who refuses to be the breadwinner. It must go both ways, otherwise it is an exploitative relationship. Just like egalitarian relationships are exploitative to women.

She cannot seem to understand that modern women are both driving the increase in sluttiness and the delayed age in marriage. I feel for her, I really do, her heart seems to be in the right place she just doesn’t understand the ramifications of what feminism has done to the average woman’s entitlement attitude and why men don’t want to marry them at all.

“Women are CHILDREN, they need to led, protected and held.”
“Women are like children they need to be taught what to do, and what choices to make.”
“We are forced to have premarital sex at the expense of a man’s pleasure, while he later leaves that same girl he slept with.”

“We are forced to have premarital sex at the expense of a man’s pleasure, while he later leaves that same girl he slept with.”

Seriously, are men holding gun’s to these women’s head to have sex. I highly doubt it. Largely, there is nothing forced about it. Whoever is meant by “we” just can’t come to terms that she had premarital sex and then the guy left her. Surprise, Surprise. This is not solely the man’s fault.

“But a woman CANNOT submit to a man who is NOT chivalrous or a man who refuses to be the breadwinner.:

This really irked me and again shows how they do not have a grasp on reality. The majority of men are not refusing to be breadwinners, in fact, I would say most of them deeply want to; however, with this economy, being a breadwinner is something a lot of men no longer have control over. It takes a serious toll on man’s self-esteem when he can’t provide and saying that men are flat out refusing adds insult to injury.

@LGR. Agree with you about men not being in control — of breadwinning, or indeed the stability of their marriages. There are lawyers continually hissing “come and divorce him: there are cash and prizes!”
I agree with you on the issue of responsibility and rank. A woman is a Commander and the executive officer of her marriage: but there is only one Captain, and God says it’s the bloke. You have to stay within the structure of that (ship) to complete the mission. Mort wrote wisely and well on this today. (Link is http://likeinbooks.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/what-superiority-is-and-isnt/#comments). It does not depend on how we feel. I never felt joy at changing nappies. But I did enough of it when the boys were young.
Where I disagree is your use of self esteem. This, at least in my cynical mind, is a delusion popular in North America — that feeling good about something will make you perform better. Wrong. Performing and overcoming leads to real worth and flexibility: being told you are wonderful and unique without any achievement leads to fragility and human breakage.

Perhaps that was not the best word to use, but I think you get what I meant. That for his own image a man already feels bad enough about being out of work with a family to support and some of the things the traditionalists say show a complete lack of empathy.
If I recall correctly, one traditionalist site use to say that a bad economy is no excuse for a man to not provide.

I posted this there, may it pass moderation, might be too extreme for their delicate sensibilities:

Your sisters have worked hard to rear (create) the men that you now have, so now you (and many others) are not happy with it. A few points:

– The men and women and each generation tend to deserve each other, egalitarian men can be kind and generous, however they are much less chivalvous (ie treating women better than other men without expectation of reward), and like all people tend to reject responsibilities without rights, which is what the bigot feminists have wrought, You, along with the current crop of official feminists wish to add more on top of that pile, while at the same time gladly accepting all the additional advantages bestowed upon you through their tireless, tunnel vision, and hateful misandry.

– The Zietgeist, both in prevailing attitude and the legal structure have made a marriage with strongly delineated roles and a husband in the leadership role a virtual impossibility. Husbands are neutered by the power of the state to come down with sledgehammer on them at the slightest complaint from their wife.

– Woman have 100% swallowed the lie that they are most at risk of violence despite having a much lower risk that the average man (whom meanders blindly along ignorant of his true risk).. This paranoia has been used to good effect to convince women that that restructuring marriage to put all the risk (instead of some or equal amounts) on the man as being a good thing.

Wow, Poester, your comment was removed due to alleged shaming tactic. I thought your comment was quite mild–just stating the truth. The TWRAs are worse than I thought. Then look at Vic’s comment, they moderated it ( I guess to tone down the alleged shaming language some). Yet Vic seemed to just want to share an honest story of what goes on in his Christian circle.

I was in the process of writing a much longer post, but I think I’ll neck it down to a few salient points:

I’m all for supporting the ability of TradCon women to live TradCon lives – as long as TradCon woman are okay with everything that entails. And since husbands are obligated to love and provide for their wives, wives are obligated to respect and obey their husbands. They don’t get to choose when, or if, or whether, or set conditions, either. “I do” means “I do swear before Almighty God that I will respect and submit to this man under all circumstances – including sexually – until death do us part. Full stop.” And TradCon women need to mercilessly slut-shame EVERY woman who voluntarily gives up her virginity before her wedding day – no exceptions.

As for the idea that all men owe chivalry to whores, I can shenanigans. My obligation is to, “Owe no man anything, but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” Nothing there about owing chivalry to whores.

(For the benefit of readers who come here from the TWRA site: calling a whore a whore is not unloving or even unchivalrous – it is merely descriptive.)

Since the article is about men’s obligations I’ll add my thoughts on that:

A husband is OBLIGATED to love his wife to the point of self-sacrifice (“as Christ loves the church”). Self-sacrifice is NOT something that all men owe to all women. The idea that all men should be eager to risk having their lives destroyed is not “chivalry” – it is “nuts.”

A wife is OBLIGATED to respect and submit to her husband – without condition.

Having said that, we need to assist each other in meeting our spiritual obligations. Therefore:

A husband OUGHT to strive to be respectable – making it natural for his wife to respect and submit to him.

A wife OUGHT to strive to be lovable – making it natural for her husband to love her.

Therefore: love, respect, and submission are choices. God would not command us to do something if we could not accomplish it by our volition.

As for the unmarried: a man should strive to be worthy of a virtuous and lovable woman – while a woman should strive to be worthy of a respectable man. Neither should marry someone who is unworthy, because society gives “the weaker vessel” the ability to unilaterally dissolve the contract and take cash and prizes. If TradCon woman want men to “man up” the FIRST thing they need to do is go absolutely nuclear on unworthy women, and wives who initiate divorce, then move Heaven and Earth to restore presumptive custody to fathers and legally strip women of the right to initiate “no-fault” divorce.

The author, Jesse Powell, is a rather young man, I believe. I think maybe he has not experienced enough of the real world and real women to understand what he is talking about. He has an idealized vision of women on a pedestal in his head.

SSM, that makes sense. There are certainly plenty of older guys who buy into that “just man-up like the men of my generation did” (Bill Bennett, anyone?), because they have no understanding of how the rules have changed.

But a young, idealistic guy… yeah, I can see that, too. He may just be one or two serious heartbreaks from the red pill, though. A guy like that will get himself “friend-zoned” into oblivion, or maybe watch a few churchian girls he’s sweet on take a few laps around the carousel, or maybe some angel-faced harpy will get her hooks into him and have him dancing on her strings for a while.

Those are the sorts of things that can help a young idealistic guy dispel his illusions about the universal virtues of the fairer sex. I know: I learned the hard way myself. It’s all good, though: I married well (25 years and counting).

Second we foster the same thing you just said female submission and male dominance and chivalry. But instead of reading what we are about you just jump on the bandwagon to attack us. The deal is that MRA’s seek egalitarianism so good luck with that. I pity women who support MRA’s and I find this site disgusting. Also, justifying your argument by using the Bible is just silly. No wonder you lack reading comprehension.

If you give the power to the MRA’s, in a few decades or so no man will ever marry and women will be raped in the streets. Women will be forced to fend for themselves and we will be back in a matriarchy, because that is what MRA’s seek by supporting Marxist egalitarian ideals. Because you know men and women are equal, thus women do not deserve to be protected by men. You must really hate yourself and the female gender to support MRA femicadeists. Any woman who lowers herself so much that she supports woman hater MRA’s is suspect and worse then a feminist. Sick!

“You must really hate yourself and the female gender to support MRA femicadeists.”

But wait a minute, I thought all women are traditional women and worthy of respect, no matter my opinions, should I not be held to a higher esteem because I am a woman? IF you suggest I must really hate myself, why not take it one step further and suggest suicide like another feminist once did.

“If you give the power to the MRA’s, in a few decades or so no man will ever marry and women will be raped in the streets.”
If no man ever marries, so be it. Choices have consequences and women probably will have to pay dearly for their feminist foresisters. To say women will be raped in the street is a scare tactic and certainly shows the assumption you make about men. It seems to the twras, unless they are putting all women on pedestals, men are all ruthless beasts deserving of the worst hatred.

Edita, we have not attacked you, we have critised you. I actually tried my level best to refrain from my usual blunt language usage to try and engage in at least a respectful debate with you and your commentators. Some of my comments did not even go through and are still sitting in moderation. Even my replies were respectful and neutral towards you and the commentators who replied to me.

I don’t know whether this blog owner supports MRAs, that’s their business. What I do know though is that this blog owner is entirely 100% against feminism. The big difference between you and this blog owner is the simple aspect of this blog realising the difficulties young Traditionally Minded men face with respect to relationships with modern women and trying to find a suitable partner for marriage. If you would at least try to understand those difficulties, you might find yourself in agreement with quite a bit of what is said around here.

I don’t hate women, I despise feminists and those that enable them to do what they do. Therefore, instead of having a go at Lyn87, why do you see him as a respectful man that found a wife, takes care of her and enjoys his life to the best of his ability. None of what he said was an attack, it was merely his opinion.

You make me laugh. I have no trouble with reading comprehension: not only have I taught literature, but I graduated with a 3.81 G.P.A. in my master’s degree program. And I have taught in church settings for many years. Your pitiful screeching is just that: pitiful.

And although you may not choose to refer to yourselves as TradCons, you certainly ARE TradCons. Don’t get your panties in a bunch: I consider myself to be within the broad definition of the phrase “TradCon.” The difference is that I’m an honest one.

My use of scripture was in the correct context, and your calling it “silly” (really?) does not make it so. Since you seemed to be offering that criticism in response to your apparent belief that, “MRA’s seek egalitarianism,” I can only surmise that you think that I support sexual egalitarianism. Both positions are ludicrous. There is simply no egalitarian consensus among M.R.A.’s (and your saying so does not make it so), and my posts preclude the idea that I am a sexual egalitarian. Perhaps you should work on your own reading comprehension skills and let the adults talk.

As for your absurd suggestion that, “If you give the power to the MRA’s, in a few decades or so no man will ever marry and women will be raped in the streets”… Frankly, I’m speechless. You could not possibly believe that tripe, could you? If you do, you must Really, REALLY, REALLY hate men.

Of all the people you chose to attack, you singled out me and the site owner. I have to ask, now that you’ve had a chance to calm down: which of my positions do you disagree with? I’ll list them all for you and you can tell us all where you feel I went awry.

1) Traditional women should be able to live traditional lives.
2) Traditional women who lead traditional lives need to accept all the ramifications of that lifestyle.
3) Husbands are obligated to love and support their wives.
4) Wives are obligated to respect and obey their husbands.
5) Traditional women should call out sluts regarding their sluttiness (the article on the TWRA website precludes men from doing so as it would not be “chivalrous”).
6) The thing you define as “chivalry” is not something that all men owe to whores.
7) We are all obligated to, “Owe no man anything, but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” (Which seems to preclude an additional requirement to owe chivalry to whores. Is God wrong about that?)
8) A husband OUGHT to strive to be respectable.
9) A wife OUGHT to strive to be lovable.
10) Love, respect, and submission are choices (otherwise a Divine command to practice them would be nonsensical).
11) An unmarried man should strive to be worthy of a virtuous and lovable woman.
12) An unmarried woman should strive to be worthy of a respectable man.
13) Neither men nor women should marry unworthy partners.
14) Woman are “the weaker vessel” and have the ability to unilaterally end a marriage and take cash and prizes.
15) Traditional women should call out sluts (again).
16) Traditional women should call out women who initiate divorce. (Except for Biblically sound reasons, of course).
17) When a couple divorces the husband should be the presumptive choice for custody of minor children.
18) Women should lose the ability to initiate divorce without demonstrating fault.

Lyn,
Very good list; although apparently believing those things makes this site disgusting. It does not matter if you believe anything traditional if you are the least bit sympathetic to MRAs, then you are “sick”.

Edita has some pretty harsh words that she directed toward you and I in particular. I figured it would be instructive to just list every single point I made and have her explain precisely which ones she found so disturbing. After all, your piece generated a lot of commentary, yet the only people she lashed out at were us – so what we said must have been especially problematic in her view.

Since she declined to provide specifics (now there’s a surprise / sarc), I would like her to tell us which of those statements she found to be so hateful. For the life of me I can’t imagine that anyone with a traditional Biblical worldview would strongly object to any of them, but anyone harboring as much hatred as Edita exhibits is clearly starting from a “root of bitterness” that is probably not subject to sound doctrinal correction anyway.

I just want her to lay her theological cards on the table rather than hiding behind an unfocused rant that amounts to little more than, “Neener-neener, you all hate women!”

I doubt she will, though. She has no legitimate argument and she doesn’t get to control the narrative on your website. She’ll probably go back to the TWRA site and brag about how she “straightened out those M.R.A. meanies,” though.

TBH, I don’t get the problem. I’ve been married for 25 years, and I’ll be the first to admit that I married a unicorn. I had two – maybe three – opportunities to marry other women, but I held out for the right one. By the same token, I made sure that I was a unicorn too, as I knew that I had to be worthy of a woman of that caliber in return, since such a woman would have many choices and I intended to be the guy standing with her at the altar. So like you, I don’t hate women. I DO hate what secularism and it’s VD-infested daughter, feminism, has done to our culture – and the fact that it has permeated the church.

@Edita TWRA
“If you give the power to the MRA’s, in a few decades or so no man will ever marry and women will be raped in the streets.”

Regardless of any MRM power base men are turning their backs on women as more and more of them realise what a mugs game it truly is. They are realising that such “rules” as there are apply ONLY to them. Why any man would want to engage with such a hating creature as yourself I’ve no idea. Your ideology will only propel more of them down that road. I encourage you. Please continue. With any luck men will go completely lysistrata on you and your sense of entitlement and superiority.

@lgrobins
“…men are all ruthless beasts deserving of the worst hatred.”

…only existing to be tamed for use as guard dogs and beasts of burden.

Edita TWRA plays the same game as feminism. Men must remain divided. Her greatest fear is men recognising their aggregate power, standing shoulder to shoulder, and delivering the collective “NO” she so clearly deserves.

Heads up,everybody. Traditional Women’s Rights Activism makes no sense at all.The social position women used to enjoy,before 100 years of leftism, wasn’t due to a charter of “rights” granted to women, but to social graces granted to them when men were mostly naive and ignorant about the nature of femininity. To call them “rights” and attempt to bring them back by force is absolutely no different from radical feminism’s “have your cake and eat it too” approach to sex issues.

I would just like to say to the supposed TWRA’s that,because of the way women have acted for 50 years, men will never again ignorantly assume that women mean well toward them, hence, none of the social customs you venerate will EVER return. Your behavior right now is making SURE that this will never happen. If you attempt to force men to extend respect or charity toward you that we do not feel is deserved, you will be DESPISED by men and you will make your situation worse by an order of magnitude.

When women act like ladies,instead of violent sexist sociopaths,they will be protected and provided for by SOME men. If you continue down the path you are walking, it is much more likely that THAT will be the catalyst for men refusing to marry any woman, and yes, even possible violence directed against women. Allowing men a psychic release valve in the form of complaining about feminism on the internet and in the public sphere will never result in violence towards women because the energy needed for it is spent in an arguably less productive manner.

This whole discussion is really kind of funny. Men will be forced to do violence on women because ….. oh, they don’t get someone to boss around and submit to them? And you wonder why women aren’t respecting you? Women are divorcing and getting all the “cash & prizes”. Who comes up with that stuff? You do realize that women by-and-large are much poorer after divorce than their male counterparts? I think it’s weird that people want to foist the responsibility for the children on women as if it’s the woman’s responsibility ….. until the divorce, then it’s the bad bad woman who’s stealing your kids from you.

If God hates divorce, then I’m assuming that He’d hate it equally, regardless of whether it was a man who caused it or a woman. You boys don’t want to be real men. You don’t want to uphold any sort of “deal”. Why would any rational woman want to sign up for marriage under your ideal system? Seems like men would get all the “cash & prizes” in your view of marriage — sex, subserviant wife, kids, housekeeper.. And what does the wife get? A paycheck that she could earn herself?